Katherine Heigl deserved at least one, or maybe even 2 more noms. She had this great Danny storyline in season 2 and when Izzie had cancer in season 5 – both seasons had some terrific potential submissions for Heigl. But on the other hand it’s her, and not Oh or Wilson, who is Emmy winner.

As much as I love Heigl, maybe more than anyone here, she didn’t deserve consecutive nominations (maybe more than two)for this role.It was a decent performance. But I don’t think she created interesting, unique and memorable character like Sandra Oh did with Cristina or Chandra Wilson did with Bailey.It was a performance more like on the same level with Ellen Pompeo‘s. Great and enjoyable but nothing special. Any above average actor could have played her part. She deserved her Emmy but it’s wrong on many levels considering she is the only one in her cast member to win an Emmy.

Yet,apart from this, she also didn’t deserve the backlash she got after explaining her choice for not submitting her name for Emmy in season 4. When I first heard about this, I thought it was a sweet of her to rejecting to be nominated for a year she wasn’t given material and I kinda wished all actor could humble like her. It was already unanturally a short season because of writer’s strike. And most of the chararcters stories were looked meaningless and up in the air after the season has ended.But now, just Google her name, and you can see on every website How she refused to take her Emmy, and how she blamed her showrunners for that.Gross.

Voted for CCH Pounder. She was the beating conscience of “The Shield” in the show’s entire run. One single nomiantion isn’t nearly enough for the staggering performance she gave here. The Emmys should have latched onto Drea long before season 5. I don’t think I would have nominated Mary-Louise Parker again for “The West Wing,” but she was very much competitive for season 3 (I’d have placed her over Stockard Channing and possibly second to Lauren Ambrose, depending on the day). On the other hand, Katherine Heigl earned more than one nomination in her run on “Grey’s Anatomy.” The LVAD storyline with Denny in season 2 was epic, and I see her controversial Emmy win as a sort of acknowledgment of that earlier slight. Even Izzie’s cancer arc had worth to it in places (beyond the ghost sex parts, ugh!). Maura Tierney did wonders in the last years of “ER.” It would have been nice to see her anchoring work recognized somewhere. I think the primary reason for her nomination was that being the season of Hurricane Sally Field blazing in as Abby’s bipolar mother. But to be fair, Field helped bring out the best in Tierney and made that her best season.

I DO NOT agree with a reality were Katherine Heigl won and emmy and Sandra Oh and/or Chandra Wilson didn´t. However, I do think she was pretty strong in the first seasons, and deserved at least one more nom.

I had to go with Maura Tierney. She delivered exceptional performances in every season she was on, it was just too bad that much of her best work came when “E.R.” had already fallen off the Emmy radar.

I would have liked de Metteo to get a nod for season four, which was almost as strong for her as season five. However, this is between Pounder and Tierney. I’d go with the former, because Tierney was lead after her first couple of seasons on ER.

Always thought MacDonald did the best she could with her material, but I never thought that material was awards worthy.

Heigel got her one deserved nod and win. It was just for the wrong season.